Letters to the Editor
-
Foreign to Foreign
Everyone -- from Russ Feingold to the ACLU -- agreed that FISA never intended to require warrants for foreign-to-foreign calls that have nothing to do with U.S. citizens, and thus, none of the bills being considered -- including the bill passed by the House -- requires warrants for such foreign-to-foreign calls.
I would like to question what has become conventional wisdom.
(Warning--bad hypotheticals and argument by metaphor follows)
Let's say for example that I rented a room to a person for three months last year who is now a suspect in the recent murder of his wife. The police come to me at my house, explain the situation, and ask for my cooperation. They believe there may be a diary left behind or hidden in the room that our now murder suspect rented last year. Did I find anything or would I be willing to let the police search that room for evidence in the murder of this man's wife?
If I am willing to cooperate, then the police do not require a warrant. If I do not cooperate, the police need a warrant even though I am not the target of the investigation because they will be searching my property. The idea that a warrant is not required because I am not the target would be considered absurd by the courts.
To reel my metaphor back to FISA, while foreign to foreign communications may not need a warrant, the search of a US citizen's property to obtain that communication should require a warrant. Currently FISA does not require a warrant to compel the "cooperation" of a US citizen in obtaining foreign to foreign communications and I believe this is an obvious violation of the fourth amendment.
It does matter where and from whom the communication is obtained.
I am not criticizing Glenn here because I don't know his position on this particular issue, but the blanket idea that foreign to foreign communications should not require a warrant is one that need to be put out to pasture. Its only value is as fertilizer.